Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV27139, Date: 2025-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: February 10, 2025

Case Name: AMAG, Inc. v. Cubas, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV38459

Matter: Motion to Quash Subpoena 

Moving Party: AMAG, Inc.

Responding Party: Omar Zambrano

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff AMAG, Inc. filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) fraudulent conversion, (2) misrepresentation, (3) constructive fraud, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, and (5) declaratory relief.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Vlaze Media Networks, Inc. sought to avoid the judgment against it in case no. BC587406 by fraudulently transferring certain assets to the other Defendants or with the help of the other Defendants.  

On May 1, 2023, Anastasiia Arseneva filed the operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”) for (1) breach of written contract, (2) quantum meruit, (3) violation of Pen. Code §§ 528.5, 529, and (4) declaratory relief.

AMAG, Inc. now seeks to quash “(a) the Deposition Subpoena to Qiang Cheng of China Southern Airlines dated September 11, 2024; and (b) Deposition Subpoena to China Southern Airlines dated September 24, 2024, and staying the deposition of Qiang Cheng, on the grounds that: (1) the subpoenas were issued for the sole improper purpose of conducting discovery relevant only to an entirely separate case for which discovery is closed; and (2) the subpoenas are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in the present case.”

Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1 authorizes courts to quash a subpoena entirely, modify it, or direct compliance with it upon the court’s own terms and conditions, including protective orders. In addition, the court may take other appropriate means to protect parties or nonparties “from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(a).)  Discovery devices are meant to facilitate litigation, not wage it.  (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 221.)

The depositions are relevant to a number of issues, including credibility and the potential for some sort of conspiracy between AMAG, Killian, Cheng, Zhang, and/or Arseneva who, based on phone records and other evidence, likely burglarized Zambrano’s office.  Further, the testimony might ultimately be relevant to the validity of a 99-year lease mentioned in the FAC.

Therefore, the Motion to Quash is denied.  The deposition is to take place within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.